• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.287-325
• /
• 2017

Considering the development of aerospace, military science and technology since the 20th century, the sky is very important for the nation's existence and prosperity. The proverb "Whosoever commands the space commands the world itself!" emphasizes the need for the command of the air. This essay is the first study on the status of airspace after reunification. First, the territorial airspace is over the territory and territorial sea, and its horizontal extent is determined by the territorial boundary lines. Acceptance of the present order is most reasonable, rather than attempting to reconfigure through historical truths about border issues, and it could be supported by neighboring countries in the reunification period. For peace in Northeast Asia, the reunified Korea needs to respect the existing border agreement between North Korea and China or Russia. However, the North Korean straight baselines established in the East Sea and the Yellow Sea should be discarded because they are not available under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is desirable for the reunified Korea to redefine the straight baselines that comply with international law and determine the territorial waters up to and including the 12-nautical mile outside it. Second, the Flight Information Region (hereinafter "FIR") is a region defined by the International Civil Aviation Organization (hereinafter "ICAO") in order to provide information necessary for the safe and efficient flight of aircraft and the search and rescue of aircraft. At present, Korea is divided into Incheon FIR which is under the jurisdiction of South Korea and Pyongyang FIR which is under the jurisdiction of North Korea. If North Korea can not temporarily exercise control of Pyongyang FIR due to a sudden change of circumstances, it is desirable for South Korea to exercise control of Pyongyang FIR, and if it is unavoidable, ICAO should temporarily exercise it. In reunified Korea, it is desirable to abolish Pyongyang FIR and integrate it into Incheon FIR with the approval of ICAO, considering systematic management and control of FIR, establishment of route, and efficiency of management. Third, the Air Defense Identification Zone (hereinafter "ADIZ") is a zone that requires easy identification, positioning, and control of aircraft for national security purposes, and is set up unilaterally by the country concerned. The US unilaterally established the Korea Air Defense Identification Area (KADIZ) by the Declaration of Commitment on March 22, 1951. The Ministry of Defense proclaimed a new KADIZ which extended to the area including IEODO on December 13, 2013. At present, North Korea's military warning zone is set only at maritime boundaries such as the East Sea and the Yellow Sea. But in view of its lack of function as ADIZ in relations with China and Russia, the reunified Korea has no obligation to succeed it. Since the depth of the Korean peninsula is short, it is necessary to set ADIZ boundary on the outskirts of the territorial airspace to achieve the original purpose of ADIZ. Therefore, KADIZ of the reunified Korea should be newly established by the boundary line that coincides with the Incheon FIR of the reunified Korea. However, if there is no buffer zone overlapping with or adjacent to the ADIZs of neighboring countries, military tensions may rise. Therefore, through bilateral negotiations for peace in Northeast Asia, a buffer zone is established between adjacent ADIZs.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.37
• /
• pp.371-405
• /
• 2004

International circulation of cultural assets involves numerous countries thereby making an approach based on international law essential to resolving this problem. Since the end of the $2^{nd}$ World War, as the value of cultural assets evolved from material value to moral and ethical values, with emphasis on establishing national identities, newly independent nations and former colonial states took issue with ownership of cultural assets which led to the need for international cooperation and statutory provisions for the return of cultural assets. UNESCO's 1954 "Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict" as preparatory measures for the protection of cultural assets, the 1970 "Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property" to regulate transfer of cultural assets, and the 1995 "Unidroit Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects" which required the return of illegally acquired cultural property are examples of international agreements established on illegal transfers of cultural assets. In addition, the UN agency UNESCO established the Division of Cultural Heritage to oversee cultural assets related matters, and the UN since its 1973 resolution 3187, has continued to demonstrate interest in protection of cultural assets. The resolution 3187 affirms the return of cultural assets to the country of origin, advises on preventing illegal transfers of works of art and cultural assets, advises cataloguing cultural assets within the respective countries and, conclusively, recommends becoming a member of UNESCO, composing a forum for international cooperation. Differences in defining cultural assets pose a limitation on international agreements. While the 1954 Convention states that cultural assets are not limited to movable property and includes immovable property, the 1970 Convention's objective of 'Prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property' effectively limits the subject to tangible movable cultural property. The 1995 Convention also has tangible movable cultural property as its subject. On this point, the two conventions demonstrate distinction from the 1954 Convention and the 1972 Convention that focuses on immovable cultural property and natural property. The disparity in defining cultural property is due to the object and purpose of the convention and does not reflect an inherent divergence. In the case of Korea, beginning with the 1866 French invasion, 36 years of Japanese colonial rule, military rule and period of economic development caused outflow of numerous cultural assets to foreign countries. Of course, it is neither possible nor necessary to have all of these cultural properties returned, but among those that have significant value in establishing cultural and historical identity or those that have been taken symbolically as a demonstration of occupational rule can cause issues in their return. In these cases, the 1954 Convention and the ratification of the first legislation must be actively considered. In the return of cultural property, if the illicit acquisition is the core issue, it is a simple matter of following the international accords, while if it rises to the level of diplomatic discussions, it will become a political issue. In that case, the country requesting the return must convince the counterpart country. Realizing a response to the earnest need for preventing illicit trading of cultural assets will require extensive national and civic societal efforts in the East Asian area to overcome its current deficiencies. The most effective way to prevent illicit trading of cultural property is rapid circulation of information between Interpol member countries, which will require development of an internet based communication system as well as more effective deployment of legislation to prevent trading of illicitly acquired cultural property, subscription to international conventions and cataloguing collections.